Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1 - General comment

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 04:43 2022-11-06, bkil đã viết:

That's an interesting problem. Does the mediawiki API support CORS? If
yes, we could easily create a very simple third party GUI form for it
just for voting or adding a new comment on the talk page.


In addition to the osm-proposals site, Martin is developing a MediaWiki 
extension that would make it easier to vote on a proposal. [1][2][3]


[1] 

[2] 

[3] 



--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1 - General comment

[ael via Tagging]

On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 08:15:05PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> > to find current proposals nor to identify those with active voting.
> > Perhaps if I had kept a copy of the initial messages in this thread,
> > I would have found an URI.
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_with_%22Voting%22_status
> I added link to it at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal#Lists_of_proposals

Thanks.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1 - General comment

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Nov 6, 2022, 13:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> A very general comment:-
>
> I very seldom consider voting on proposals, but I did want to look over
> this one.
>
> However, when I logged into the wiki, there seemed to be no easy way
> to find current proposals nor to identify those with active voting.
> Perhaps if I had kept a copy of the initial messages in this thread,
> I would have found an URI.
>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_with_%22Voting%22_status
I added link to it at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal#Lists_of_proposals

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1 - General comment

[bkil]

That's an interesting problem. Does the mediawiki API support CORS? If
yes, we could easily create a very simple third party GUI form for it
just for voting or adding a new comment on the talk page.

On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 1:31 PM ael via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> A very general comment:-
>
> I very seldom consider voting on proposals, but I did want to look over
> this one.
>
> However, when I logged into the wiki, there seemed to be no easy way
> to find current proposals nor to identify those with active voting.
> Perhaps if I had kept a copy of the initial messages in this thread,
> I would have found an URI.
>
>
> I would also comment that when I had decided to vote on another
> proposal some time ago, it was not an easy process and seemed to involve
> editing a page in what was not an immediately obvious way. I gave up for
> lack of time. Note that I do program in several languages, so I
> possibly have more expertise and experience than many mappers.
>
> There are only a tiny number of people who vote on these proposals,
> and while there is maybe a small audience on this list who even know,
> I wonder how many even then are put off by the non obvious voting
> process. Or is it just me?
>
> ael
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1 - General comment

[ael via Tagging]

A very general comment:-

I very seldom consider voting on proposals, but I did want to look over
this one.

However, when I logged into the wiki, there seemed to be no easy way
to find current proposals nor to identify those with active voting.
Perhaps if I had kept a copy of the initial messages in this thread,
I would have found an URI.


I would also comment that when I had decided to vote on another
proposal some time ago, it was not an easy process and seemed to involve
editing a page in what was not an immediately obvious way. I gave up for
lack of time. Note that I do program in several languages, so I
possibly have more expertise and experience than many mappers.

There are only a tiny number of people who vote on these proposals,
and while there is maybe a small audience on this list who even know,
I wonder how many even then are put off by the non obvious voting
process. Or is it just me?

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Nov 6, 2022, 01:11 by robin.bu...@gmx.de:

>
>  
>
>
>  
>
> "Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging" tagging@openstreetmap.org – 6. November 2022 
> 00:24
>  
>
>>
>> 1) there was no consensus even among people who voted in that old proposal
>>
>>
>
>  
>
>
> And what do you say to the result of 41 : 9 ? That is not a "consensus"? 
>
>
Consensus has a clear meaning, and is far stronger than "only small part is 
opposed".

Consensus was not reached in this case.

> Then why is healtcare also considered approved? Ah well, maybe because it is 
> an approved proposal and therefore the "consensus" for OSM.
>
You can get proposal approved without it being a consensus position.
Also, consensus can change over time.

---

I am dubious about claim that we need to deprecate more heavily used things
to make things more attractive to programmers and data consumers.

"something that you are using just got deprecated" is a guaranteed way to annoy
any programmer. Works well also for manager in a large company.

Also, I will link 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/398555
again.
Titled "Deprecated or duplicate tagging schemes in use are not critical issues"___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6 Nov 2022, at 01:13, Robin Burek  wrote:
> 
> And what do you say to the result of 41 : 9 ? That is not a "consensus"? Then 
> why is healtcare also considered approved? Ah well, maybe because it is an 
> approved proposal and therefore the "consensus" for OSM. We can just throw 
> away the approved status if it no longer has any effect. And it is just above 
> "defacto" in the hierarchy.


there is nothing above „de facto”, de facto is a status that actually means de 
facto.

“Approved” is a status referring to a vote in the wiki but clearly any actual 
defacto status is much more important than any of the votes we held up to now, 
with hardly ever 50-100 people participating, and never more than 150 (afaik).

There is nothing wrong with amenity=hospital, neither with doctors, dentist, 
etc.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Robin Burek]

 
 
"Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging" tagging@openstreetmap.org – 6. November
2022 00:24
 

> 1) there was no consensus even among people who voted in that old
proposal

 
And what do you say to the result of 41 : 9 ? That is not a "consensus"?
Then why is healtcare also considered approved? Ah well, maybe because it
is an approved proposal and therefore the "consensus" for OSM. We can just
throw away the approved status if it no longer has any effect. And it is
just above "defacto" in the hierarchy.
 

> 3) proposal process is useful to get review of proposal and thorough
> nitpicking and criticism, and to make people aware about some concept.
> It can be sort of useful to gauge support for some ideas. It is not so
> useful at forcing people to do stuff.

 
Hell what? That is far and away from reality. You misunderstand the power
of the process, don't you? 95% (probably 99%) of the users do not
participate in these votes, but use exactly the "guidelines" that we have
documented here in the wiki. That should not be denied. And if a tag is
sorted as "deprecated", that is clearly a sign for editors etc. that
something else should be implemented. Here, too, your perception clearly
misses the reality of how different developers think and act
 

> 4) even if double tagging is unacceptable (I disagree), then this
> proposal failed to explain why amenity=hospital rather
> healthcare=hospital is being deprecated

 
Of course that is clear. But apparently you want Proposals and thus
Approved Tags to have no meaning any more. Because it is simple.
amenity=hospital has been replaced by healthcare=hospital in the 2010
proposal. That is approved. That is also not something that is questioned
anywhere here. So this approved tagging is preferred to non-approved
tagging. 
Quite simply. 
 

> 5) "This, by the way, is one reason why certain companies refuse to use
> OSM data."
> 5a) [citation needed] it will make some programmers grumble a bit at most

 
Sorry, but I can only give you this anecdotal knowledge from my experience,
because business emails and conversations are unfortunately subject to
secrecy.  

> 5b) OSM data model is not unusually bad compared to many other curious
> or insane stuff in geoinformatics, geodatabases, databases, programming
> in general.Compared to some stuff I have seen it is working remarkably
> well. 
> 5c) even if that claim is true, so what?

 
Now that's laughable. Just because things are going badly elsewhere doesn't
mean things are going well here? If that's the claim, then we're really
lost. I deal massively with users who are held back by the complexity. And
yes, the point is that the tagging is often not clear. And yes, I am
currently working on projects where I bring the healthcare sector closer to
such open data. But if these don't have any effects, you might end up
having to resort to proprietary solutions after all. Because an end user
can no longer explain why he suddenly has to use 5 tags instead of one to
express the same thing. (Caution: exaggeration) This is how you scare
people away from this project! I also read in chats etc. from people who no
longer want to participate in the improvement here because "that's no
problem for a programmer". The fact that this somehow sucks for all users,
but x people don't care, but you could actually make it easier for
everyone, doesn't count for these x people. 

> 6) proposal vote getting results you dislike is not a valid reason to
> deprecate proposal process

 
The voting is not the decisive factor here. It's the rationale. Because it
concludes for me that the decisions of proposals and corresponding votes
are worth nothing here. They are not even considered a valid reason for a
tagging commitment in front of you and others. So in the end I don't see
any voting necessary for a proposal anymore. What should be voted on? At
the end of the day, you can see how people feel about it in the comments.
Or they don't care about the whole issue. So again: Whether you want to
admit it or not: Proposal results clearly have an effect by "collecting a
few opinions", but if this effect is not desired, it is the wrong system to
approach such a topic.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

1) there was no consensus even among people who voted in that old proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=589962

2) there was no consensus among OSM community at that time

3) proposal process is useful to get review of proposal and thorough nitpicking
and criticism, and to make people aware about some concept.
It can be sort of useful to gauge support for some ideas.
It is not so useful at forcing people to do stuff.
It is thoroughly useless at forcing people to deprecate basic tags.
For example proposal deprecating highway=motorway would not result
in dropping support for highway=motorway, it would result in dropping
support for proposals deprecating things.

4) even if double tagging is unacceptable (I disagree), then this proposal
failed to explain why amenity=hospital rather healthcare=hospital is 
being deprecated

5) "This, by the way, is one reason why certain companies refuse to use OSM 
data."
5a) [citation needed] it will make some programmers grumble a bit at most
5b) OSM data model is not unusually bad compared to many other curious or
insane stuff in geoinformatics, geodatabases, databases, programming in general.
Compared to some stuff I have seen it is working remarkably well.
5c) even if that claim is true, so what?

6) proposal vote getting results you dislike is not a valid reason to deprecate
proposal process

Nov 5, 2022, 23:42 by robin.bu...@gmx.de:

>
> There is no reason?! Sorry, but a consensus of the community that has clearly 
> been reached is clearly a reason.
>
>
>
> And if we now get to the point of just "throwing away" the consensus of 12 
> years ago. We are leading the entire consensus process ad adsurdum. Because 
> then we won't need all this any more. Simply total anarchy. 
> This is also becoming a question: do we still need the proposal process at 
> all? Because the result from 12 years ago is also completely ignored by you. 
> And if you read the old proposal really hard, it was already decided to 
> deprecate in 2010, but no one has finally implemented it.
>
>
>
> In this community, we seem to be moving further and further into a system 
> where improvements to the system are massively prevented and established 
> double tagging is simply left in place instead of finally being cleaned up. 
> This, by the way, is one reason why certain companies refuse to use OSM data. 
> The data structure is unnecessarily inflated and complicated by such 
> duplications. If we don't stick to our own conventions and enforce consensus, 
> perhaps the consensus process should be abolished altogether? 
>
>
>
>
> Abschließend: Ich stelle garnicht in Frage, welches Tagging besser oder 
> schlechter ist. Das ist 2010 schon in einem Consensus von 42 zu 9. Ich stelle 
> dies garnicht zur Diskussion. Es ist schon entschieden worden. 
>  
>
>
> "Joseph Eisenberg" joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com – 5. November 2022 23:27
>  
>
>>
>> This debate has gone on for a long time.
>>
>>
>> I do not have time to review every proposal when there have been so many 
>> lately and many did not appear to be well developed enough to come to a 
>> vote. 
>>
>>
>> I admit that I did not take the proposal seriously since it did not have any 
>> argument in favor of this change. Here is the entire rationale section:
>>
>>
>> ">> With the 2010 proposal there is a double-tagging option for health 
>> facilities. Some of the editors once included it and then discarded it. This 
>> leads sometimes to confusion by mappers. 
>>
>>
>> To tidy up this situation, I propose the following changes. Likewise, 
>> editors, mappers and data users will then have a uniform consensus for 
>> further development."
>>
>>
>>
>> This statement could also be made in favor of deprecating the duplicate, 
>> less popular tags like healthcare=hospital, healthcare=dentist and instead 
>> encouraging use of the more common amenity=hospital, amenity=dentist. There 
>> was no argument or explanation for why the "new" (12 year old) tags under 
>> healthcare should be preferred to the "de facto" standards under the 
>> "amenity" key. 
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact I would propose to deprecate healthcare=hospital since it is less 
>> common, and amenity=hospital is a good tag which is already used and 
>> interpreted by mappers and database users. 
>>
>>
>> During the start of the pandemic, I started to attempt deprecation of 
>> healthcare=pharmacy as a first step but abandoned the effort due to lack of 
>> time and energy: (>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_healthcare%3Dpharmacy>>
>>  ) 
>>
>>
>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 3:00 PM Robin Burek <>> robin.bu...@gmx.de 
>> >> > wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What kind of reversal of guilt is that? If someone does not participate in 
>>> the RFC. And it has been discussed both here and in the new forum. Even 
>>> constructive support, which I have received and not a little.
>>> I have yet to talk to anyone who didn't thi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Robin Burek]

There is no reason?! Sorry, but a consensus of the community that has
clearly been reached is clearly a reason.
And if we now get to the point of just "throwing away" the consensus of 12
years ago. We are leading the entire consensus process ad adsurdum. Because
then we won't need all this any more. Simply total anarchy. This is also
becoming a question: do we still need the proposal process at all? Because
the result from 12 years ago is also completely ignored by you. And if you
read the old proposal really hard, it was already decided to deprecate in
2010, but no one has finally implemented it.
In this community, we seem to be moving further and further into a system
where improvements to the system are massively prevented and established
double tagging is simply left in place instead of finally being cleaned up.
This, by the way, is one reason why certain companies refuse to use OSM
data. The data structure is unnecessarily inflated and complicated by such
duplications. If we don't stick to our own conventions and enforce
consensus, perhaps the consensus process should be abolished altogether? 
Abschließend: Ich stelle garnicht in Frage, welches Tagging besser oder
schlechter ist. Das ist 2010 schon in einem Consensus von 42 zu 9. Ich
stelle dies garnicht zur Diskussion. Es ist schon entschieden worden.  
"Joseph Eisenberg" joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com – 5. November 2022 23:27
 

> This debate has gone on for a long time.
> I do not have time to review every proposal when there have been so many
> lately and many did not appear to be well developed enough to come to a
> vote. 
> I admit that I did not take the proposal seriously since it did not have
> any argument in favor of this change. Here is the entire rationale
> section:
> "With the 2010 proposal there is a double-tagging option for health
> facilities. Some of the editors once included it and then discarded it.
> This leads sometimes to confusion by mappers. 
> To tidy up this situation, I propose the following changes. Likewise,
> editors, mappers and data users will then have a uniform consensus for
> further development."
> This statement could also be made in favor of deprecating the duplicate,
> less popular tags like healthcare=hospital, healthcare=dentist and
> instead encouraging use of the more common amenity=hospital,
> amenity=dentist. There was no argument or explanation for why the "new"
> (12 year old) tags under healthcare should be preferred to the "de
> facto" standards under the "amenity" key.  
> In fact I would propose to deprecate healthcare=hospital since it
> is less common, and amenity=hospital is a good tag which is already used
> and interpreted by mappers and database users. 
> During the start of the pandemic, I started to attempt deprecation of
> healthcare=pharmacy as a first step but abandoned the effort due to lack
> of time and energy:
>
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_healthcare%3Dpharmacy)
 
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 3:00 PM Robin Burek  wrote: 
>
>> What kind of reversal of guilt is that? If someone does not participate
>> in the RFC. And it has been discussed both here and in the new forum.
>> Even constructive support, which I have received and not a little.I
>> have yet to talk to anyone who didn't think it was right to finally
>> enforce the 2010 consensus. So am I supposed to keep looking here until
>> someone eventually comes around? Sorry, but I cannot accept this attack
>> against me. If there have been major changes, I understand that
>> reminders/updates are sent. But not for this simple issue. 
>>  
>> "Brian M. Sperlongano" zelonew...@gmail.com – 5. November 2022 22:50 
>>
>>> It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that there is a
>>> consensus before moving to a vote, regardless of timelines. It seems
>>> to me that there has been a recent plague of proposals where proposal
>>> writers are tossing proposals into voting status without doing enough
>>> due diligence.  If you are not getting much feedback on your proposal,
>>> sending a reminder is appropriate. It is never "too late" for someone
>>> to express an opinion. 
>>> The lack of immediate opposition is not an indicator of consensus.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 5:42 PM Robin Burek 
wrote: 
>>>
 Sorry, but this comes a bit too late. The RFC has been running for a
 month! Contentwise only different "old" designations were added there.
 It is also not changed to a "new key". There is also nothing "new".
 Only the old Healthcare Proposal from 2010 (!) is finally enforced
 (so much for "without justification"). I think we should finally
 accept and enforce the solutions that have been agreed upon. Or
 deprecate the old consensus! But I have decided for the first.  
  
  
 "Joseph Eisenberg" joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com – 5. November 2022
22:31 

> This proposal attempts to deprecate very popular tags without
> justification.
>>>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 5:55 PM Robin Burek  wrote:

> What kind of reversal of guilt is that? If someone does not participate in
> the RFC. And it has been discussed both here and in the new forum. Even
> constructive support, which I have received and not a little.
> I have yet to talk to anyone who didn't think it was right to finally
> enforce the 2010 consensus. So am I supposed to keep looking here until
> someone eventually comes around? Sorry, but I cannot accept this attack
> against me. If there have been major changes, I understand that
> reminders/updates are sent. But not for this simple issue.
>

"It was discussed here" = a single response where Mateusz said he thought
it was premature. If a consensus developed separately, by all means bring
it to light here. My brief scan of the community forums doesn't seem to
show an obvious consensus that has developed, as the proposal vote appears
to be showing. The sole link to discussion in the proposal goes only to a
single German-language thread on the forum. While this proposal may be
obvious to you, consider what a contributor reading the proposal for the
first time might take away.

If you think I am poking a finger at you, I'm sorry, but I've put
significant work into the proposals I've done in the past, and I'd
encourage you to consider constructively whether what you have written
makes a strong case for what you're trying to do.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Joseph Eisenberg]

This debate has gone on for a long time.

I do not have time to review every proposal when there have been so many
lately and many did not appear to be well developed enough to come to a
vote.

I admit that I did not take the proposal seriously since it did not have
any argument in favor of this change. Here is the entire rationale section:

*"With the 2010 proposal there is a double-tagging option for health
facilities. Some of the editors once included it and then discarded it.
This leads sometimes to confusion by mappers. *

*To tidy up this situation, I propose the following changes. Likewise,
editors, mappers and data users will then have a uniform consensus for
further development."*
This statement could also be made in favor of deprecating the duplicate,
less popular tags like healthcare=hospital, healthcare=dentist and instead
encouraging use of the more common amenity=hospital, amenity=dentist. There
was no argument or explanation for why the "new" (12 year old) tags under
healthcare should be preferred to the "de facto" standards under the
"amenity" key.

In fact I would propose to deprecate healthcare=hospital since it is less
common, and amenity=hospital is a good tag which is already used and
interpreted by mappers and database users.

During the start of the pandemic, I started to attempt deprecation of
healthcare=pharmacy as a first step but abandoned the effort due to lack of
time and energy: (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_healthcare%3Dpharmacy
)

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 3:00 PM Robin Burek  wrote:

> What kind of reversal of guilt is that? If someone does not participate in
> the RFC. And it has been discussed both here and in the new forum. Even
> constructive support, which I have received and not a little.
> I have yet to talk to anyone who didn't think it was right to finally
> enforce the 2010 consensus. So am I supposed to keep looking here until
> someone eventually comes around? Sorry, but I cannot accept this attack
> against me. If there have been major changes, I understand that
> reminders/updates are sent. But not for this simple issue.
>
>
> "Brian M. Sperlongano" zelonew...@gmail.com – 5. November 2022 22:50
>
>
> It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that there is a
> consensus before moving to a vote, regardless of timelines. It seems to me
> that there has been a recent plague of proposals where proposal writers are
> tossing proposals into voting status without doing enough due diligence.
> If you are not getting much feedback on your proposal, sending a reminder
> is appropriate. It is never "too late" for someone to express an opinion.
>
>
> The lack of immediate opposition is not an indicator of consensus.
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 5:42 PM Robin Burek  > wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, but this comes a bit too late. The RFC has been running for a
> month! Contentwise only different "old" designations were added there.
>
> It is also not changed to a "new key". There is also nothing "new". Only
> the old Healthcare Proposal from 2010 (!) is finally enforced (so much for
> "without justification"). I think we should finally accept and enforce the
> solutions that have been agreed upon. Or deprecate the old consensus! But I
> have decided for the first.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Joseph Eisenberg" joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com
>  – 5.
> November 2022 22:31
>
>
> This proposal attempts to deprecate very popular tags without
> justification.
>
> The tags amenity=hospital, amenity=clinic and amenity=dentist are
> extremely well established and used by all kinds of maps and applications
> of Openstreetmap data.
>
> These features are also clearly amenities: they are an important service
> that you want to have nearby in your town, and all residents and visitors
> will need to know the location of the closest hospital or dentist to get
> medical services.
>
> There is no benefit to changing to a different key, but there is a great
> difficulty in re-tagging and changing applications.
>
> This proposal should be rejected.
>
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 1:49 PM Robin Burek  > wrote:
>
>
>
> Voting has started for Healthcare 1.1 -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_1.1
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Robin Burek]

What kind of reversal of guilt is that? If someone does not participate in
the RFC. And it has been discussed both here and in the new forum. Even
constructive support, which I have received and not a little.I have yet to
talk to anyone who didn't think it was right to finally enforce the 2010
consensus. So am I supposed to keep looking here until someone eventually
comes around? Sorry, but I cannot accept this attack against me. If there
have been major changes, I understand that reminders/updates are sent. But
not for this simple issue. 
 
"Brian M. Sperlongano" zelonew...@gmail.com – 5. November 2022 22:50
 

> It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that there is a
> consensus before moving to a vote, regardless of timelines. It seems to
> me that there has been a recent plague of proposals where proposal
> writers are tossing proposals into voting status without doing enough
> due diligence.  If you are not getting much feedback on your proposal,
> sending a reminder is appropriate. It is never "too late" for someone to
> express an opinion. 
> The lack of immediate opposition is not an indicator of consensus.
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 5:42 PM Robin Burek  wrote: 
>
>> Sorry, but this comes a bit too late. The RFC has been running for a
>> month! Contentwise only different "old" designations were added there.
>> It is also not changed to a "new key". There is also nothing "new".
>> Only the old Healthcare Proposal from 2010 (!) is finally enforced (so
>> much for "without justification"). I think we should finally accept and
>> enforce the solutions that have been agreed upon. Or deprecate the old
>> consensus! But I have decided for the first.  
>>  
>>  
>> "Joseph Eisenberg" joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com – 5. November 2022
22:31 
>>
>>> This proposal attempts to deprecate very popular tags without
>>> justification.
>>> The tags amenity=hospital, amenity=clinic and amenity=dentist are
>>> extremely well established and used by all kinds of maps and
>>> applications of Openstreetmap data. 
>>> These features are also clearly amenities: they are an important
>>> service that you want to have nearby in your town, and all residents
>>> and visitors will need to know the location of the closest hospital or
>>> dentist to get medical services. 
>>> There is no benefit to changing to a different key, but there is a
>>> great difficulty in re-tagging and changing applications. 
>>> This proposal should be rejected. 
>>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>>  
>>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 1:49 PM Robin Burek 
wrote: 
>>>
  
 Voting has started for Healthcare 1.1 -
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_1.1

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org[1]
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  
>>>
>>>  
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org[2]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>  
>
>  



Links:
--
[1] https:/index.php/apps/mail/mailto?to=Tagging@openstreetmap.org
[2] /index.php/apps/mail/mailto?to=Tagging@openstreetmap.org
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that there is a
consensus before moving to a vote, regardless of timelines. It seems to me
that there has been a recent plague of proposals where proposal writers are
tossing proposals into voting status without doing enough due diligence.
If you are not getting much feedback on your proposal, sending a reminder
is appropriate. It is never "too late" for someone to express an opinion.

The lack of immediate opposition is not an indicator of consensus.

On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 5:42 PM Robin Burek  wrote:

> Sorry, but this comes a bit too late. The RFC has been running for a
> month! Contentwise only different "old" designations were added there.
>
> It is also not changed to a "new key". There is also nothing "new". Only
> the old Healthcare Proposal from 2010 (!) is finally enforced (so much for
> "without justification"). I think we should finally accept and enforce the
> solutions that have been agreed upon. Or deprecate the old consensus! But I
> have decided for the first.
>
>
>
>
> "Joseph Eisenberg" joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com – 5. November 2022 22:31
>
>
> This proposal attempts to deprecate very popular tags without
> justification.
>
> The tags amenity=hospital, amenity=clinic and amenity=dentist are
> extremely well established and used by all kinds of maps and applications
> of Openstreetmap data.
>
> These features are also clearly amenities: they are an important service
> that you want to have nearby in your town, and all residents and visitors
> will need to know the location of the closest hospital or dentist to get
> medical services.
>
> There is no benefit to changing to a different key, but there is a great
> difficulty in re-tagging and changing applications.
>
> This proposal should be rejected.
>
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 1:49 PM Robin Burek  > wrote:
>
>
>
> Voting has started for Healthcare 1.1 -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_1.1
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Robin Burek]

Sorry, but this comes a bit too late. The RFC has been running for a month!
Contentwise only different "old" designations were added there.
It is also not changed to a "new key". There is also nothing "new". Only
the old Healthcare Proposal from 2010 (!) is finally enforced (so much for
"without justification"). I think we should finally accept and enforce the
solutions that have been agreed upon. Or deprecate the old consensus! But I
have decided for the first.  
 
 
"Joseph Eisenberg" joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com – 5. November 2022 22:31
 

> This proposal attempts to deprecate very popular tags without
> justification.
> The tags amenity=hospital, amenity=clinic and amenity=dentist are
> extremely well established and used by all kinds of maps and
> applications of Openstreetmap data. 
> These features are also clearly amenities: they are an important service
> that you want to have nearby in your town, and all residents and
> visitors will need to know the location of the closest hospital or
> dentist to get medical services. 
> There is no benefit to changing to a different key, but there is a great
> difficulty in re-tagging and changing applications. 
> This proposal should be rejected. 
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>  
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 1:49 PM Robin Burek  wrote: 
>
>>  
>> Voting has started for Healthcare 1.1 -
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_1.1
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org[1]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>  
>
>  



Links:
--
[1] /index.php/apps/mail/mailto?to=Tagging@openstreetmap.org
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Joseph Eisenberg]

This proposal attempts to deprecate very popular tags without justification.

The tags amenity=hospital, amenity=clinic and amenity=dentist are extremely
well established and used by all kinds of maps and applications of
Openstreetmap data.

These features are also clearly amenities: they are an important service
that you want to have nearby in your town, and all residents and visitors
will need to know the location of the closest hospital or dentist to get
medical services.

There is no benefit to changing to a different key, but there is a great
difficulty in re-tagging and changing applications.

This proposal should be rejected.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 1:49 PM Robin Burek  wrote:

>
> Voting has started for Healthcare 1.1 -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_1.1
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

[Robin Burek]

 
Voting has started for Healthcare 1.1 - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_1.1

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging